The world is full of best intentions. Sure, there are a number of miscreants among us, troublemakers, malcontents. But the vast majority of people who seek change do so with admirable purpose. They seek change in a spirit of improvement. That said, one person’s progress is another’s oppression. Freedom is in constant and persistent conflict with society and its rules. The needs of the many, and all that. Unfortunately, when someone accomplishes their “progress,” we may find that there are unintended and perhaps unpredicted consequences. There is the chance that someone’s solution merely creates new and different challenges.
I was thinking of this recently when I read about straws in the national news. Yes, those straws for sippin cider. W. Freear, 1894. I noticed a couple of years ago that a Florida municipality I frequent had outlawed straws. Well, not all straws, just the ones that you can use. The paper straws were still permissible, though singularly unusable. I mentioned it at a checkout and was told “We know, everybody complains.” Humorously, I spent a night in a hotel in that town and the breakfast room was replete with plastic cups, utensils, and packaging. Makes sense, right?
I have since made it a habit to fill-up elsewhere, without stopping in that municipality. I am not wedded to straws, but when you are driving and trying to handle a 64-ounce beverage, the straw evolves from convenience to necessity. So, I forego that town. My consumption, expenditures, and tax revenue go elsewhere. I applaud them for their principle (however misguided) and celebrate my freedom of choice.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) recently ran an intriguing article The Truth about Drinking Straws. That is one eye-catching headline for a straw-lamenting fellow like me.
The article describes the disappointment when your straw “quickly flops in on itself, forcing you to take it out and leave it on the table in a wet, pulpy mess.” Been there. Try it with no table, in a car, at 70 miles per hour on the Interstate, in traffic. The author explains that in the Commonwealth (used to be an empire, just sayin), “Paper straws have become almost ubiquitous.” The campaign has succeeded in a “rush() to ditch plastic.” The consumers apparently demanded it, and the retailers and service providers complied.
Thus, an excellent example of perceived problem, advocacy and focus, and market reaction.
But hold on. It turns out that the advantage of plastic straw pollution (if there is one) is that they can be seen, picked up, and properly disposed of. If they are not disposed of, they might “linger in the environment for 300 years.” That’s scary. But, you can see them. And they are popular. They estimate Americans use about 500 million per day. That is right, per day. The campaign against them has reportedly resulted in companies abandoning them, and entire states banning them.
The paper straws (which may lead to decreased sales and patronage) “leave a lot to be desired.” Scientists have been looking into these seemingly superior “pulpy mess” paper straws and they claim that they contain significant "forever chemicals." More such chemicals than the plastic straws. These chemicals can persist “in the environment for decades, can contaminate water supplies, and are associated with a range of health problems.” You can't see the chemicals, cannot pick them up and dispose of them.
Well, how about bamboo? No joy there, they note those also contain these “forever chemicals.” And, as such, there is some debate as to their biodegradability.
Turns out, according to the straw-forswearing author, that plastic straws are “a drop in the bucket compared to other plastic pollution.” The author says “they actually make up only a tiny fraction of the plastic waste that finds its way into the environment.” They are not, perhaps it is fair to say “the” lynchpin of the pollution challenge.
Sure, there are some heartwrenching videos out there of sea life injured or killed by straws. I am not advocating either wasting straws, littering with them, or other irresponsibility. The emotions are there. But is there empirical evidence that straws are the problem? Not cited by the BBC.
Instead, "the straw became the symbol of a choice,” a statement. The anti-sippin crowd has this as a rally cry, has videos and pictures, and is effecting change. But will it change anything for the environment? Doubtful. We will struggle with our “pulpy mess” in one hand and our plastic straw in the other. We will consume products packaged and protected in plastic, and use it to store our leftovers for later.
The article makes that patent final conclusion: “Giving up plastic straws won't solve plastic pollution.” It may be a publicity bonanza regarding plastic generally, but my use of a “pulpy mess” will not save the world. And if I somehow convince 500 million people to suffer the “pulpy mess” that won’t solve pollution. The anti-plastic movement “is now mainstream and global." The United Nations is involved and has big plans.
The BBC encourages us that nonetheless, we can all make some difference. Well, just remember that the cure (“Pulpy mess”) may have the unintended consequence of more “forever chemicals” in your environment, which you cannot see or pick up. The cure may not accomplish what you intend to the extent you imagine or hope. Before going to war on a symbol, perhaps some study of the problems, actual cause, and predominant contributors makes some sense.
Know that there is some probability of unintended and unpredicted effects. Study those probabilities in preparation for change. Think through where those impacts will be, and how pervasive. I am doubtful that the little town I avoid will ever miss the revenue loss of my bypassing their venues. And yet . . ..
The Boston Globe recently reported that one of the richest in the world is abandoning Washington and moving to Miami. Over climate? Over straws? No, over taxes. Certainly not the same thing as my skipping the strawless desert. But, perhaps another example of the challenge of regulation and the potential for unintended consequences.
There has been mention here of other regulatory (in)action and their consequences. See Purpose (October 2023). What is the purpose of government? Is it to make pyrrhic progress over straws? Is it to tax people into relocation? Is it to provide a safe environment for people to live, work, and thrive? Intriguing choices. Unforeseen consequences. Unintended results. It perhaps bears consideration.
